What happens when there is no abortion law…

There is no abortion law in Canada. It is neither legal nor illegal, it is simply a medical procedure and covered by universal health care. Universally, abortions performed at hospitals are free. Whether abortions at free-standing clinics are covered varies by province/territory. Some provinces and territories with limited providers pay travel costs when women have to go to a different province for the procedure. There are no mandatory ultrasound laws and no 24 hour waiting periods.

Abortion became legal in Canada in 1969 as part of a massive reform to “get the government out of the bedrooms of the nation.” While abortion was decriminalized, it could only be performed in cases to preserve “life and health.” Women had to prostrate themselves in front of a committee of three doctors and plead their case. Many doctors told me they rubber stamped these requests. “To see these poor women pouring out stories of misery, it just broke my heart,” one told me. However, other providers could be less understanding.

In 1988, The Supreme Court of Canada deemed this pleading for abortion to be unconstitutional and the law was struck down. A bill was introduced in 1989 to once again ban abortions unless the life and/or health of the mother were in jeopardy. While the bill was passed by the House of Commons (elected Members of Parliament), it was defeated by the Senate who are all, interestingly enough, political appointees. No political party has introduced any abortion legislation since, and so there is no abortion law.

Now contrast the American experience with complicated laws, far greater cost (the average amount paid for a 1rst trimester abortion is $451, with 60% of women paying out-of-pocket for their procedure), indignities (mandatory ultrasound), and inconveniences such as 24 hour delays and uncompensated travel.

So how does lawless Canada stack up against regulated America?

In Canada, the teen birth and abortion rate is 27.0/1,000 women between the ages of 15-19 versus 61.2/1,000 in the United States.

The abortion rate among all women of reproductive age (15-44) in Canada is 14.1/1,000 versus 20/1,000 in the United States.

Put another way, the teen birth and abortion rate is more than 50% higher in the United States versus Canada and the abortion rate is about 25% higher in the Unites States.

Canadian women also have something else. They have access to health care and sex education is widely taught in the schools.

Laws, cost, and indignities don’t reduce abortion, knowledge and contraception do.

As I’ve said before, if you’re serious about reducing the need for abortion your priorities and focus should be on preventing unintended pregnancies with comprehensive sex education and affordable, accessible contraception (like, you know, the ACA mandate). Making burdensome, medically unnecessary, unscientific abortion restrictions does nothing to curb incidence; it just makes it more expensive and less accessible thereby disproportionately affecting low-income people and people of color. Most people getting abortions say they would have liked to get their abortion even earlier and it was abortion restrictions and cost that were standing in their way. Perhaps if antis actually took the time to understand why people need abortions they’d understand that the solution would be tackling the problem of unintended pregnancies. But valid, helpful solutions have never been their aim, it’s always been about punishment, sex shaming, and embryo worship, which is why they are utterly ineffective.

The Oyez Project

This is a fantastic Supreme Court resource that I just found. It has archive recordings of almost all the oral arguments brought forth during cases to the Supreme Court. It also has mp3s, transcripts, and case info available. 

Most applicable to this blog is the section on cases in regards to abortion and contraceptives. Also applicable, but for some reason not showing up in that filter, are Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut.

They also have a page dedicated to the Court’s upcoming review of the Affordable Care Act.

Another great resource is this page of reproductive rights cases from FindLaw.

Texas Loses Entire Women's Health Program Over Planned Parenthood Law

The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that it will cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas, following Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) decision to implement a new law that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program.

Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO), wrote Texas health officials a letter on Thursday explaining that the state broke federal Medicaid rules by discriminating against qualified family planning providers and thus would be losing the entire program, which provides cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care to 130,000 low-income women each year.

“We very much regret the state’s decision to implement this rule, which will prevent women enrolled in the program from receiving services from the trusted health care providers they have chosen and relied upon for their care,” she wrote. “In light of Texas’ actions, CMS is not in a position to extend or renew the current [Medicaid contract].”

The federal government pays for nearly 90 percent of Texas’ $40 million Women’s Health Program, and nearly half of the program’s providers in Texas are Planned Parenthood clinics. But the new law that went into effect earlier this month disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the program because some of its clinics provide abortions, even though no state or federal money can be used to pay for those abortions.

According to Medicaid law, Mann said, a state cannot restrict women’s ability to choose a provider simply because that provider offers separate services — in this case, abortion — that aren’t even paid for by the Medicaid program.

Perry wrote a letter to President Obama earlier this month accusing his administration of “mandating which health providers the state of Texas must use” in order to “continue to support abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.” He vowed to continue the Women’s Health Program in Texas without Planned Parenthood and without federal money, although he has yet to outline how his state will come up with money.

But an HHS spokesperson told reporters on Thursday that this was not Obama’s decision and that the administration’s hands are tied on the issue. “Medicaid law is very clear; a state may not restrict patients’ choice of providers of services like mammograms and other cancer screenings, if those providers are qualified to deliver care covered by Medicaid. Patients, not state government officials, should be able to choose the doctors and other health care providers that are best for them and their families. In 2005, Texas requested this same authority to restrict patients’ choices, and the Bush Administration did not grant it to them either.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article said that Texas’ Women’s Health Program costs $40 billion. The correct number is $40 million. We regret the error.

_____________________________

*People besides cis women will be affected by Texas’ decision to put the WHP in jeopardy.

ThinkProgress’ reporting on the story [excerpt]:

Federal law prevents states from banning specific providers from Medicaid programs, leading to the Women’s Health Program showdown. Mann said that while they try to give as much flexibility as possible, “on this case, federal law precludes us from doing so.”

Last year, the federal government gave $39 million for the program. The state pays $1 for every $9 Medicaid puts into the program, but Gov. Rick Perry (R) has insisted the state will fill the gap to keep the program going without including Planned Parenthood. Texas Democrats are seeking alternate federal funds to continue the program through a different route.

A poll earlier this month showed that a majority of Texans disagreed with the Republican push to cut off Women’s Health Program funds to clinics simply because they also provide abortions. Fifty-nine percent of voters opposed the new rule, while 38 percent agreed with it.

And this story from RH Reality Check last year is still painfully relevant unfortunately.

• All Those Alternatives to Planned Parenthood? In Texas, At Least, They Don’t Exist

Why Do Tobacco Companies Get A Better First Amendment Than Doctors?

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 instructed the FDA to develop new cigarette labels that include “color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking.” Yesterday, a federal judge in DC struck down these labels on the ground that they violate the First Amendment’s protections against compelled speech:

A fundamental tenant of constitutional jurisprudence is that the First Amendment protects “both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” … In the arena of compelled commercial speech, however, narrow exceptions do exist and allow the Government to require certain disclosures to protect consumers from “confusion or deception.” Indeed, courts apply a lesser standard of scrutiny to this narrow category of compelled speech through which the Government may require disclosure only of “purely factual and uncontroversial information.” …

[A]fter reviewing the evidence here it is clear that the Rule’s graphic-image requirements are not the type of purely factual and uncontroversial disclosures that are reviewable under this less stringent standard. To the contrary, the graphic images here were neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception, nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks; rather, they were crafted to evoke a strong emotional response calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never start smoking.

As a matter of constitutional law, this is not crazy. The First Amendment does provide robust protections against compelled speech, and there is no exception to the First Amendment simply because a lot of people don’t like the plaintiff.

Sadly, however, many federal judges don’t seem to get this, at least in the context of abortion. A few weeks ago, the Fifth Circuit upheld a Texas law mandating government-compelled speech by doctors. Texas law requires doctors to tell their patients medically-irrelevant information, such as stating that the fetus has a heartbeat and discussing “the presence of external members and internal organs,” before they may perform an abortion. In other words, the law forces Texas doctors to advocate for the government’s anti-abortion agenda no less than the FDA labels require cigarette companies to advocate for an anti-smoking agenda, and yet the Fifth Circuit upheld the law on the grounds that the First Amendment is weaker in the face of laws that “express[] a preference for childbirth over abortion.”

Nor is this case an isolated incident. The Eighth Circuit upheld a law requiring doctors to tell their patients that abortion will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” a statement that is both controversial and of uncertain factual basis — and thus would easily fail First Amendment scrutiny under the standard articulated by the judge in the tobacco case.

Simply put, if it is unconstitutional to require tobacco companies to print graphic anti-smoking labels, than it must also be unconstitutional to force doctors to parrot the state’s views on the abortion debate. America does not have one constitution for wealthy corporations and another, inferior constitution for everyone else.

_____________________________________

So, compelling a company to provide information on their product which is overtly biased, controversial, and not necessarily factual: BAD. Compelling doctors to perform medically unnecessary and expensive procedures, tell their patients information that is controversial and overtly biased, and forcing them to outright lie to patients against all their medical and ethics training: AWESOME. That’s the score here, really?

*I do not, however, condone the use of the word “crazy” in this article.

Sweden Drops Law Forcing Sterilization of Trans People

02.29.12 -  In a major reversal, this month the Swedish government announced plans to repeal an archaic law forcing transgender people to undergo sterilization before legally changing their gender. The announcement comes after several years of LGBT and human rights organizations around the world, including the Center for Reproductive Rights, putting pressure on the government to repeal the law and stand up for the sexual and reproductive rights of all people in the country, including transgender people.

According to the law, passed in 1972, Swedish citizens seeking a sex-change operation are required to be over 18-years-old, unmarried and sterilized. Last year, there were efforts to change the legislation, but the Christian Democratic Party, a small part of the conservative governing coalition, succeeded in blocking the change, arguing that the issue is complex and needed to be examined further.

Human rights activists argued that essentially blackmailing or giving transgender people an ultimatum that either they must be sterilized or the government will not recognize their true gender identity is not only cruel, but as a legal matter, a flagrant breach of fundamental rights. Finally this month, the Christian Democrats announced that they agree to abolish the policy on forced sterilizations. There is also agreement that the requirement for unmarried status will be dropped.

The legislation is unusual as Sweden has often been a champion for human rights internationally-including the principle that every person should be able to decide over his or her body, sexuality, and reproduction.

Similar laws exist in Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland, and many other countries across the globe.

2011: A Look Back

[…]

From the start, the 2011 legislative session was marked by animus and antagonism to women’s health, and the year quickly became an all-out assault on women’s rights. Even though legislators reject the vast majority of the hundreds of bills proposed each year, 2011 was extraordinarily alarming as more than 60 bills became—for now—laws restricting women’s access to reproductive health care. That is an exceptionally high number.

There is no question that 2011 will be viewed as a pivotal year in which millions of women lost important ground, suffered flagrant violations of their reproductive rights, and saw governments time and again act to harm, rather than improve, their health.

[…]

As we prepare for 2012, the Center offers this recap of the major trends of 2011, a look at what the next legislative session may bring, a state-by-state analysis of 2011’s enacted laws, and notes on some of the positive legislation that will improve women’s health and safeguard their rights.

Download the full report “2011: A Look Back” (PDF) »>

*people who can get pregnant, not just cis women.

The Contraception Controversy: A Comprehensive Reply

[Though cis-centric, I think we can safely file this under “things that are absolutely brilliant.” At this point, anyone who asserts that contraception coverage is an infringement on religious liberty is both disingenuous and willfully ignorant. I highly recommend you go read the whole thing.]

The Obama Administration’s recently announced policy to require insurers to cover contraception as women’s preventive health care has prompted many over-heated op-eds, editorials on both sides and even a thoroughly one-sided Congressional hearing.The controversy is unlikely to end anytime soon: pending federal legislation and proposed amendments would massively enlarge the scope of insurers’ and business owners’ ability to restrict any type of insurance benefit on either “moral” or “religious” grounds, undermining the very purpose of insurance. 

Below, we take a closer look at the arguments by opponents of the contraception requirement, unpack the legal issues and public health debate, and respond to many erroneous assertions. (Click on each title to read the full section.)

Facts About the Contraception Controversy

(Download a PDF of this document)

Full Introduction

Last August, recommendations for women’s preventive care from an Institute of Medicine panel of medical experts made a compelling case for transformative improvements in the availability of contraception that will lead, at last, to measurable improvements in the sky-high rates of unplanned pregnancy in the United States, and will, happily, increase the proportion of planned pregnancies among American women. Read More

1) Religious liberty and the right of an individual to live according to his or her own religious conscience are supported, not threatened, by this policy.

The issue raised in this debate is not whether religious liberty should be protected, but whose religious liberty the law should protect. Conscience rights belong to individuals, not institutions. The new policy accommodation responds to the concerns of religiously-objecting institutions without sacrificing individual workers’ rights, religious liberty or consciences. Read more.

2) Both the original policy and the accommodation are legally and constitutionally sound.

Neither the Administration’s accommodation nor the original policy violates constitutional principles or federal law. Opponents of the contraceptive-coverage requirement lack a robust legal basis for challenging the policy, and they would not be supported in their claims even by conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Read more.

3) The Administration’s policy accommodation fairly balances the interests of employers and employees and is based on the economic realities of the insurance marketplace.

Once paid to the insurer, the funds of an objecting religious employer lose their identity and become those of the insurer. The employer may not direct how the insurer invests, spends or otherwise uses those dollars. The Bishops’ continuing opposition reveals how they have shifted the goalposts over the course of this debate – now it is not only paying for contraceptive coverage that is objectionable, but the very knowledge that an employee might independently obtain a service despite the disapproval of her employer. Read more.

4) Birth control coverage is a mainstream and commonsense aspect of preventive care for women.

Respect for life and the experience of pregnancy demands that we take steps to ensure that pregnancies are healthy and wanted. Birth control prevents unintended pregnancy, and the panoply of negative economic, social, and health outcomes that occur for both mother and child when a pregnancy is unintended. Read more.

5) Emergency contraception is essential to women’s health and is not an “abortion drug.”

The Bishops’ claim that emergency contraception is abortion-inducing does not reflect scientific reality. Emergency contraception works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation or other pre-pregnancy processes. Without a pregnancy, there can be no abortion. Read more.

6) Sterilization is a common form of birth control. Denying access, especially when it is medically recommended, can have devastating consequences.

American women increasingly rely on sterilization as a form of contraception as they get older. For many women, a post-partum sterilization is recommended when additional pregnancies are not only undesired but would threaten the woman’s health. Refusing to provide insurance for a sterilization following childbirth in such circumstances may mean denying a patient wanted and needed medical care. It also means that the woman must subject herself to a second, unnecessary surgical procedure and the risks of a second medical intervention. Read more.

7) Conclusion

The U.S. has a proud tradition of defending the right of the individual to moral self-determination in both religious and secular matters. The Obama Administration’s healthcare accommodation allows employers that object to providing coverage for contraception to avoid both paying for and communicating about that coverage, while ensuring that employees of public-facing institutions have the same benefits as everyone else. No one is compelled to use the benefit or pay for contraception under the policy, and no provider is compelled to furnish services. This is a fair and workable balancing of interests and should have ended the controversy. Read more.

Download a PDF of The Contraception Controversy »>

5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide)

harmreduction:

Scott Morgan, Associate Director, FlexYourRights.org

Whether or not you ever break the law, you should be prepared to protect yourself and your property just in case police become suspicious of you. Let’s take a look at one of the most commonly misunderstood legal situations a citizen can encounter: a police officer asking to search your belongings. Most people automatically give consent when police ask to perform a search. However, I recommend saying “no” to police searches, and here are some reasons why:

1. It’s your constitutional right.
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless police have strong evidence (probable cause) to believe you’re involved in criminal activity, they need your permission to perform a search of you or your property. Read more.

2. Refusing a search protects you if you end up in court.
Basically, if there’s any chance of evidence being found, agreeing to a search is like committing legal suicide, because it kills your case before you even get to court. Read more.

3. Saying “no” can prevent a search altogether.
Data on police searches are interesting, but they don’t show how many searches didn’t happen because a citizen said no. A non-search is a non-event that goes unrecorded, giving rise to a widespread misconception that police will always search with or without permission. Read more.

4. Searches can waste your time and damage your property.
Do you have time to sit around while police rifle through your belongings? Police often spend 30 minutes or more on vehicle searches and even longer searching homes. Read more.

5. You never know what they’ll find.
Are you 100 percent certain there’s nothing illegal in your home or vehicle? You can never be too sure. Read more.

Good tips!

This is important info to have. Know your rights and don’t ever think for one second the police are on your side. 

17 European Countries Force Transgender Sterilization (Map)

cassket:

People rightly flipped out across the internet last month over news that the Swedish parliament would not be repealing a barbaric law that forces sterilization on trans people seeking to change their gender on legal documents. While it’s despicable that Swedish politicians are opposing the law change, much of the outrage, no doubt, occurred because people previously didn’t realize that a forced sterilization law existed in Sweden. 

Considering how shocking people find Sweden’s law, it’s worth pointing out the country is 1 of 17 in Europe (shown in red below) that require trans people to have a surgical procedure that results in sterilization before legal gender change is made to their identification ID. The law is currently under review in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Portugal, and in Ireland a name change (which acknowledged gender change) was granted for one woman after a legal challenge that went to the high courts, but no laws exist on the matter.

Data source: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

According to a report on transgender rights (PDF) in the EU by the Directorate-General for Internal Politics, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe says, “These practices run counter to the principle of respect for the physical integrity of the person, in particular because transgender people appear to be the only group in Europe subject to legally prescribed, state enforced sterilization.” For all the instances that require ID—health insurance, travel, driver’s license, university enrollment, jobs—when name and gender on a state-issued ID don’t match up with the gender a person presents, that person is subject to debilitating challenges and discrimination. It also leaves anyone who doesn’t identify and present as specifically male or female out of the conversation completely.

Surprised? Well, the discrimination doesn’t stop in Europe. On February 3, the CBC reported on an amendment to Canada’s Identity Screening Regulation stating that airlines should not transport a passenger if he or she ”does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents.” Live as a woman but have an “M” on your passport? You might not be able to get on a plane in Canada, even with an accurate photo ID.

While not all countries explicitly require sterilization, many nations (and quite a few US states) demand proof of major medical procedures like sex reassignment surgery; hormone therapy; a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, a psychiatric condition defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months duration”; or permission by the courts. But in order to change the gender on their passports in Canada, trans Canadians must have had or be scheduled for a gender reassignment surgery, and a doctor’s note isn’t enough.

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights 2009 “Issue Paper on Human Rights and Gender Identity“ (PDF) takes particular aim at surgical or sterilization requirements, saying they “ignore the fact that while such operations are often desired by transgender persons, this is not always the case.” People don’t always want surgery, and it’s often impossible because of physical or economic impediments. The Issue Paper’s conclusions are clear; these sterilization requirements are “putting the transgender person in a limbo without any apparent exit.”

(via djkjfjglgk)